All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The manuscript has been significantly improved by incorporating the suggestions made by the reviewers.
The authors should carefully consider the recommendations by the reviewers for their resubmission.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the response letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the response letter. Directions on how to prepare a response letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
See general comments.
Did the authors studied the gene location?
Did the authors perform a genetic transformation and functional analysis of the gene(s) you cloned?
no
no
This study was carried out WRKY cloning and analysis of genesin Dactylis glomerata. 98 DgWRKY genes and 281 RGAs，GO and KEGG enrichment analysis of all genes showed that 78 DgWRKY TFs were identified in the plant–pathogen interaction pathway, with 59 of them differently expressed.
In fact, these genes studies have a lot of reports in recent years (about 800 papers in recent three years). Please see the following references. By studying this papers we can recommend some papers to let you know what has happened in recent years. You also can show some progress.
[1] Wang, X. Y., Song, J., Xing, J. H., Liang, J. F., & Ke, B. Y. (2020). Genome-Wide Identification and Expression Profile Analysis of WRKY Family Genes in Teak (Tectona Grandis).
[2] Yang, X., Zhou, Z., Fu, M., Han, M., & Xu, F. (2020). Transcriptome-wide identification of wrky family genes and their expression profiling toward salicylic acid in Camellia japonica. Plant Signaling & Behavior, 16(1), 1844508.
[3] Aguayo, P., Lagos, C., Conejera, D., Medina, D., & Valenzuela, S. (2019). Transcriptome-wide identification of wrky family genes and their expression under cold acclimation in Eucalyptus globulus. Trees, 33(10), 1-15.
[4] Villano, C., Esposito, S., D'Amelia, V., Garramone, R., & Carputo, D. (2020). Wrky genes family study reveals tissue-specific and stress-responsive tfs in wild potato species. Scientific Reports, 10(1).
[5] Shi, Y., Wang, G., Yang, X., & Cao, F. (2019). Analysis of codon usage bias of gene factors in Ginkgo biloba WRKY family. Molecular Plant Breeding.
[6] Wang, X., Li, J., Guo, X., Ma, Y., & Guo, J. (2019). Plwrky13: a transcription factor involved in abiotic and biotic stress responses in Paeonia lactiflora. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 20(23), 5953.
[7] Wu, G. Q., Li, Z. Q., Cao, H., & Wang, J. L. (2019). Distributed under creative commons cc-by 4.0 genome-wide identification and expression analysis of the wrky genes in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris l.) under alkaline stress. PeerJ, 7(11).
[8] Yan, H., Li, M., Xiong, Y., Wu, J., & Ma, G. (2019). Genome-wide characterization, expression profile analysis of wrky family genes in Santalum album and functional identification of their role in abiotic stress. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 20(22), 5676-.
[9] Li, Z., X Hua, Zhong, W., Yuan, Y., Wang, Y., & Wang, Z. , et al. (2019). Genome-wide identification and expression profile analysis of WRKY family genes in the autopolyploid Saccharum spontaneum. Plant and Cell Physiology (3), 3.
The authors should be revise the manuscript in the following ways:
The manuscript had showed too much about the function and description of the WRKY gene in the introduction section. The author should directly let the reader known what you should do.
Did the authors studied the gene location?
Did the authors perform a genetic transformation and functional analysis of the gene(s) you cloned?
The literature of recent years (2019-2021) must be quoted, and some old literatures should be deleted.
The introduction requires refinement.
no comment
Fig.10 is lack of differentiation significantness analysis between highly resistant PI251814 and highly susceptible PI292589 lines, between treatment group and control group. And by now, the result can not verify if the up-regulated and down-regulated of the WRKY genes are truely.
Line346-Line361 should also discribe the result of the differentiation significantness analysis.
I agree with the reviewers in that the manuscript requires major editing. Please review the suggestions by the reviewers and make changes that were suggested. This will help to improve the manuscript significantly.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
WRKY transcription factors (TFs) are one of the largest gene families in plants, which can regulate a variety of plant processes and widely participate in the response of plants to biotic and abiotic stresses. Here the authors identified a total of 93 DgWRKY genes and 281 RGAs, including 65, 169, and 47 NBS-LRR, LRR-RLK, and LRR-RLP. Through analyzing the expression of DgWRKY genes in orchardgrass under different environmental stress DgWRKYs responded to both biotic stress and abiotic stress. DgWRKYs and RGAs may synergistically respond to the defense process of orchardgrass against rust. This study was useful for the study of the molecular mechanisms of WRKY gene in orchardgrass.
Many errors occurred in the text, it should be revised.
Line 44 References should be in order of years of publication
Line 67，76，98, 106, 167, 170, 171, 172, 189, 195, 214, 274, 361, There is a problem with the citing the reference formatting.
Line 206 two parens.
Line 60, (C T 2005) and Line 633, should be Thomas Eulgen 2005
Line 420, (C & C 2002) should be Devendra C, Sevilla CC. Availability and use of feed resources in crop-animal systems in Asia. Agricultural Systems, 2002, 71:59-73.
Line 713 The first word capital of the journal name in the reference, other small. In addition, some journals in the literature are full names, some are abbreviations, you should be modified in accordance with the requirements of the contribution journals.
Line 228， 237 , Note that there are some places to be spaced
Line 77，271 When a plant species first appears in the text, the Latin name should be full name. It should be short when it comes back later. Pay attention to Dactylis glomerata，Arabidopsis thaliana Line 119，123，261，139
Fig. 7, 11,12 Lack of differentiation significantness analysis.
some of the figs are not high quality.
It is OK.
On the whole, the paper writing is relatively rough, there are many small problems in the text, in addition to the literature reading is not enough, did not quote the literature of recent years (2019-2021), English writing is not standardized, there are many problems, it is recommended to find good Experts in English to promote.
No comment.
The experiments of abiotic stress(heat,drought,submergence) are all from the literature. Therefore, they don't have to be that specific.
No comment.
1.The writing needs polishing.
2.All descriptions of abiotic stresses should be refined by reference.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.